The government has announced a national target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 51-55% below 2005 levels by 2035.
This new contribution would reduce NZ’s emissions to around 40 million tonnes CO2-equivalent per year by 2035.
Nations participating in the Paris Agreement (recently excepting the US) are due to submit their greenhouse gas reduction targets by February.
The SMC asked experts to comment. Expert comments published prior to the announcement are available here.
Dr Dalila Gharbaoui, Political and Social Scientist, Adjunct Fellow, University of Canterbury, comments:
“New Zealand’s climate commitments must align with fair share responsibility. New Zealand’s second Nationally Determined Contribution announcing to reduce emissions by 51 to 55 per cent compared to 2005 levels, by 2035 fall short of its fair share under the Paris Agreement.
“The Climate Change Commission has made it clear that New Zealand can cut emissions by 66% below 2005 levels by 2035 without harming economic growth. The Paris Performance Ranking Initiative scores New Zealand at just 25.2% in its evaluation of countries’ alignment with the Paris Agreement by assessing progress on key areas such as mitigation, adaptation, climate finance, technology transfer, capacity building, and transparency (Articles 2, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 13 of the Agreement).
“The global shift to clean energy and sustainable food production is accelerating. More ambitious domestic policies will secure a future that is not only low carbon but also just and equitable. Equity must be central to New Zealand’s climate strategy. Vulnerable communities in Aotearoa are disproportionately affected by climate change and must be supported in this transition. Investments in home insulation, community solar power, and affordable clean transport will not only cut emissions but also improve health, resilience, and economic outcomes for all.
“Again, failing to act now will have devastating consequences, both environmentally and socially. Aotearoa must lead by example and take responsibility for its fair share of climate action.”
No conflicts of interest.
Prof. Ralph E. H. Sims, Professor Emeritus, Sustainable Energy and Climate Mitigation, Massey University, comments:
“NZ’s current NDC is to reduce gross emissions by 50% below 2005 levels by 2030. That is from 84.5 Mt of all greenhouse gases down to around 42.3 Mt of net emissions – or around 2% reduction per year on average.
“Our newly announced emission reduction target under the Paris Agreement is 51% by 2035.
“WOW! That sure is ambitious!
“Other nations targeting closer to 60 – 65% reductions will no doubt be impressed by this additional reduction of around 0.2% per year – or even at the 55% end of the target range, of 1% per year!
“Meanwhile, of course, many of the Coalition Government’s recent policies such as increased road speeds, less support for cycleways and public transport, removal of support for low emission vehicles, removal of incentives for decarbonising industry, encouraging more oil and gas exploration, etc. will all help to increase our annual greenhouse gas emissions.
“Our 2nd Emission Reduction Plan has a target for domestic emissions of around 55 Mt by 2030.
“The new NDC higher target of 55% reduction equates to around 38 Mt of net emissions by 2035.
“This huge drop from 55 to 38 Mt needed from 2031 till 2035 can possibly be met in part by planting even more trees – e.g. on DOC land – or by buying emissions from another country – costly and challenging.
“New technologies, not yet developed or commercialised, are being sought by government in the Emission Reduction Plan to help fill this gap.
“Yet haven’t we just reduced the science sector who might be able to assist in this endeavour?
“Not to mention social science research that might just be able to help determine the best ways to encourage all New Zealanders to reduce their carbon footprints.
“Maybe our only hope to meet these emission reduction targets is to see more Kiwis move offshore – and take their carbon footprints with them.”
No conflicts of interest.
Dr Nathan John Cooper, Associate Professor of Law, University of Waikato, comments:
“Today’s announcement on the government’s new Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) is another missed opportunity to take the action necessary to minimise climate breakdown and its consequences. Pledging to reduce emissions by 51-55% compared to 2005 levels, by 2035 is likely far short of what is needed for the country to pay its fair share.”Late last year the Climate Change Commission warned that New Zealand’s domestic emissions reduction target is insufficient. Now, on the international stage, the government has shown it would rather stick with business as usual than to do what it takes to meet the challenges that climate change is creating. These challenges aren’t just far off or far away. They are already being felt by New Zealanders in floods, storms and in questions of managed retreat, among others.
“As the US administration begins its withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, now more than ever is the time for Aotearoa and other countries to stay focussed on the purpose of that treaty (limiting global temperature rise to well below 2 degrees centigrade above pre-industrial levels, while pursuing efforts to limit temperature rise to 1.5 degrees) and to match national commitments accordingly.
“Without providing an appropriately ambitious NDC in line with the Paris goal, this government is not sending the right message to New Zealanders or to our trading partners and neighbours. It is also failing to show regional leadership at a time when many Pacific nations are on the frontline of climate-related risk and damage.”
No conflicts of interest.
Dr Robert McLachlan, Distinguished Professor in Applied Mathematics, Massey University, comments:
“The new NDC, net 2035 emissions to be at least 51% below gross 2005 emissions, is extremely weak and is unlikely to meet assessments for an ambitious and fair contribution to the 1.5ºC goal, being scarcely lower than the current 2030 target of –50%. The Climate Change Commission had advised that reductions of 66% were achievable from domestic action alone, so to see such a weak target is very disappointing.”NDCs, and their continual strengthening, are a key component of the Paris Agreement. Current NDCs put the world on track for 2.8 ºC of warming by 2100; there is also a gap in implementation, with current policies adding up to 3.1 ºC. Current trend warming of 1.3 ºC, increasing by 0.1 ºC every three years, is already leading to damaging impacts – for example, in New Zealand house insurance premiums, which have increased 47% since the 2023 floods.
“New Zealand also has an implementation gap, as no plans to meet the 93 million tonne CO2-equivalent shortfall in the 2021-2030 NDC (a period nearly half over) have been announced, and domestic climate action in the rest of this decade has been gutted, especially in the energy and transport sectors.
“The new NDC does not take into account the advice of the Climate Change Commission on reducing existing carbon budgets or strengthening the 2050 target.
“Overall, the new NDC is of a piece with the sweeping anti-climate policies and rhetoric of the government. As outgoing Climate Change Commission chair Rod Carr said in his closing words to parliament, “Those who continue to promote the combustion of fossil fuels in the open air without permanent carbon capture and storage are, in my view, committing a crime against humanity.””
No conflicts of interest.
Dr Rebecca Peer, Senior Lecturer, Civil and Natural Resources Engineering Department, University of Canterbury, comments:
“The government’s second Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC2) released last night is a single-year target of 51-55% below 2005 gross emissions by 2035. For climate action, this is a disappointing, though not unsurprising, announcement. The lower value of the target range is just 1% more ambitious than our first NDC. This is effectively promising stagnant action on climate under the guise of a “progression in ambition.” To be clear, this is not an ambitious target. Our current NDC for 2030 is insufficient, and this second NDC places us even farther away from a commitment that represents our fair share.”
See Dr Peer’s comment prior to the announcement here.
Conflict of interest statement: Dr Peer receives funding from MBIE to research energy transitions and carbon removal.
Dr James Renwick, Professor of Physical Geography, Victoria University of Wellington, comments:
“The new NDC is a small advance of the previous one, as required by the Paris Agreement. OK, but it is about as small an advance as the country could get away with, going from a 50% reduction by 2030 to a 51% reduction (or 51-55%). That’s a disappointingly small step forward, in the face of the increased pace of climate change seen in the past five years, the breaking of the bottom of the Paris Agreement range (1.5ºC warming) in 2024, and the increased severity of extreme events seen recently, from ex-tropical cyclone Gabrielle to the LA wildfires.
“In any case, the country needs to get on with reducing domestic emissions, to avoid the need for mass tree-planting or for buying credits in other countries. We have big opportunities in the transport sector and in the industrial sector, through electrifying the vehicle fleet and by phasing out the use of coal for heat and power generation. New Zealand has abundant renewable resources, let’s see us grab them with both hands! Let’s lead the world on beating climate change.”
See Prof. Renwick’s comment prior to the announcement here.
Conflict of interest statement: “I receive funding from MBIE and other agencies to study climate change. I was an author on the past three Assessment Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I was a Commissioner with the New Zealand Climate Change Commission.”
Associate Professor Inga Smith, Department of Physics, University of Otago and Co-Director of He Kaupapa Hononga: Otago’s Climate Change Research Network, comments:
“Given the serious threat that climate change poses to the world, it is heartening that the Government is sticking with the Paris Agreement by setting a Second Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) on greenhouse gas emissions reductions. It is also good news that the Government has taken on board the in-depth and extensively researched advice of the Climate Change Commission when setting the NDC. As the IPCC has pointed out, every increment of increases in global warming results in more intense extremes in very wet weather, very dry weather, and climate events (e.g., major storms). These changes will not be linear with increasing warming, which is why any and all reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are important.
“However, in the Climate Action Tracker (CAT) December 2024 assessment, the “list of countries having climate actions that were “1.5°C Paris Agreement Compatible” was completely blank. In the category of “Insufficient” (taking us to between 2°C to 3°C of warming) were the USA and Australia, but in the worse category of “Highly Insufficient” (taking us to between 3°C to 4°C of warming) was New Zealand, along with China, India, and at least three other countries.
“At first glance, the new NDC does not seem to be at the higher level of ambition that might change the category that New Zealand sits in for compatibility with the Paris Agreement. In addition, given New Zealand’s economic and societal dependence on international aviation and shipping, it is worth noting that CAT also ranked “Aviation” in late 2024 and “Shipping” in late 2023 as “Critically Insufficient” (taking us to more than 4°C of warming, a category that Saudi Arabia and Russia also fall into) and “Highly Insufficient”, respectively.
“This announcement does not address either of these sectors, and it will be interesting to see what the Government does regarding these sectors in the future.”
No conflicts of interest.
Dave Frame, Professor of Physics at the University of Canterbury, comments:
“The new contribution under the Paris Agreement should have separated out the emissions targets for short-lived and long-lived gases. Not only is separating the gases in line with what everyone writing on emissions metrics suggests, but other countries, such as the US, are also beginning to see the sense in this (or were, when they were part of the Agreement). The failure to do so is a victory for bureaucratic obscurantism, and a missed opportunity to show a bit of leadership.
“The other obvious thing to do is jettison the strict 1.5ºC interpretation of the Paris Agreement. That ship has sailed. A far better approach would be to create a clear and explicit link between what we will do and what others will do. If others do more, we should do more; if not, then it seems irrational, naive, and supererogatory for us to sacrifice our economy while others do nothing. In theory, this should appeal to everyone – optimists should rest secure in the comfort that as others rapidly reduce emissions, we will have committed to stay with them; pessimists should be reassured that we won’t be the only ones taking expensive action. In practice, the approach appeals mainly to moderates. These are both things that could be improved next time around.”
No conflicts of interest.
Professor Bronwyn Hayward, Professor of Political Science and International Relations, University of Canterbury, comments:
“The Paris Climate Agreement of 2015 aimed to coordinate world efforts to hold the world’s climate temperatures under 2 Degrees Celsius (and as close to 1.5 degrees as possible).
“The agreement is supported by 197 nations. Only three countries (Iran and Libya and Yemen) don’t support it. The United States infamously pulled out under President Trump in 2020 and he has signalled he will do this again next year.
“The main tool of this voluntary agreement is that governments agreed to make their own commitments to reduce emissions and enhance adaptation effort every five years. Called Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), these are commitments where each country outlines how much it will do to reduce their own emissions and protect people, environment.
“Governments also promised to act fairly and to “ratchet up” their commitment every five years to reflect their “highest possible ambition”.
“New Zealand’s former Climate Ambassador and University of Canterbury Senior Adjunct Fellow, Kay Harrison has said she hoped New Zealand would commit to a new 66 percent reduction on 2005 levels of emissions (our last target was a 50% reduction). However as announced last night, we have committed to a mere 51-55% reduction. This will provoke anger from Pacific nations and frustration from trading partners who will argue we are not doing our fair share. Yet even a tiny 1 percent commitment has provoked strong domestic push back from the New Zealand’s farming lobby group Federated Farmers.
“So what can citizens do when national governments seem to be hamstrung and unable to lead? Our research here at the University of Canterbury NZ and at the University of Surrey UK, together with the experience of the United States itself, shows one solution is to work at a scale where citizens can influence action: cities!
“Cities are sites of 70% of world greenhouse gas emissions and as the United States has demonstrated the last time President Trump pulled out of Paris, cities and states can continue to drive downward emissions anyway.
“Here in Canterbury in December all 11 Mayors from across the region and from a wide political spectrum came together to launch a plan to tackle climate change through combining efforts to focus on creating a low-emissions future in collaboration with communities, businesses, and Iwi.
“Critics will argue that most of New Zealand’s emissions come from agriculture, but over 80 percent of our country already live in cities and in cities we can lead significant innovation right now. Our national climate ambition might be lacking but Canterbury Mayors are beginning to lead in new ways.”
Conflict of interest statement: Professor Bronwyn Hayward is director of The Sustainability, Citizenship and Civic Imagination Research Group: Hei Puāwaitanga at the University of Canterbury and a fellow of the Centre for understanding sustainable prosperity Surrey University, and a review editor for the forthcoming IPCC Cities Special report.